Re: Release Schedule issues and doubts

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>]

On Jun 4, 2006, at 1:43 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The trouble is there does not seem to be a clear gain in your
> punishment system.  At best it may just discourage people.
> In a commercial organization, that might be a good system.  For a free
> project like GCC, it is not obvious where the long-term benefits for
> the project are, given its "unconventional" way of "hiring" people.

Which is why in my previous message, I proposed in giving rewards to
ones which stick around and maintain.  Do we want positive or negative
reenforcement?

> People get inactive for some period of time for various reasons, some
> of whichg are not subject of public debate.

My system said nothing about inactive people, only the active ones.
The way I consider a person active maintainer is approving patches/ 
creating
patches.  If a person cannot follow up on the approval and/or creation,
then why should we take the contribution if it causes problems?

2 months after the regression was found seems like a good time frame for
figuring if the maintainer could handle the work load.  Maybe we  
should have
a time limit on how far after the patch went in, we should consider  
the regression
significant to worry to give a punishment out.

-- Pinski